World War I

[DeletedUser]

this is going a bit off course.
:icon_evil:

Tbh ryan, this thread never had a course lol.

The world war was over even before it started. It was Purely for Publicity.

I feel really sorry for the SMACK members that remain, having to carry on after the tribes Rep was killed.

But Kudos on keeping the name Monty.

(any normal duke would of changed the name lol)

 

[DeletedUser]

Tbh ryan, this thread never had a course lol.

The world war was over even before it started. It was Purely for Publicity.

I feel really sorry for the SMACK members that remain, having to carry on after the tribes Rep was killed.

But Kudos on keeping the name Monty.

(any normal duke would of changed the name lol)

HAHA wind up merchant....

I think the war would have been fun, you never know smack might redeclare on everyone

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, it wasn't purely for publicity. I'd say if we declared earlier than we did, this war would've turned out much differently.

 

[DeletedUser]

Doubt it tbh, you didnt have enough nobleing capabilities within your tribe when you declared and you defo didnt have enough before hand, Declaring on all sides earlier would have been an even bigger travisty.

 

[DeletedUser]

Doubt it tbh, you didnt have enough nobleing capabilities within your tribe when you declared and you defo didnt have enough before hand, Declaring on all sides earlier would have been an even bigger travisty.

gotta agree tbh, there was no way you would of had enough nobles and/or troops to take on 3 K's worth of troops.

 

[DeletedUser]

No, no. Not exactly what I meant, but you are right. What I should have stated is, by the time we declared, we had been strongly hit by quitting/inactivity. Declaring earlier (be it publicly or not) would've turned out differently in the future of the tribe which in turn would've caused a different outcome war-wise.

 

[DeletedUser]

No, no. Not exactly what I meant, but you are right. What I should have stated is, by the time we declared, we had been strongly hit by quitting/inactivity. Declaring earlier (be it publicly or not) would've turned out differently in the future of the tribe which in turn would've caused a different outcome war-wise.

I suppose your half right,

If you declared earlier, most of the players that quit/inactive wouldnt have left this world because of boredom.

But then again, if you declared earlier its wouldnt of really been a war, Just massed Expansion on all sides.

(my veiw of a war is massed troops and nobles on both sides not just yours lol)

 

[DeletedUser]

Tbh if you declared earlier the members probably would have been confused and disillusioned at why a tribe would declare when they cant back it up. If your members had stayed active, then it would have been a very interesting war.

alternative scenario :-

If you had just made it clear that your tribe had 0 diplomacy from day 1 then you may have kept people interested and you wouldnt have needed to do a publicity stunt. With the players smack had you should have tried that from day 1. You still would have had people fall by the wayside but you may have retained more experience and the world war would have come your way instead of smack! declaring. The problem with smack declaring on all sides so early is that any experienced players or longterm players knew it would be a non starter, and im sure the experience in smack knew this aswel.

 

[DeletedUser]

alternative scenario :-

If you had just made it clear that your tribe had 0 diplomacy from day 1 then you may have kept people interested and you wouldnt have needed to do a publicity stunt. With the players smack had you should have tried that from day 1. You still would have had people fall by the wayside but you may have retained more experience and the world war would have come your way instead of smack! declaring. The problem with smack declaring on all sides so early is that any experienced players or longterm players knew it would be a non starter, and im sure the experience in smack knew this aswel.

This bit actually intrigued me, what makes you think they would all have lasted had they kept 0 diplomacy from day 1? Sure experience is key, but there are ways to beat experience.

 

[DeletedUser]

I dont necessarily think they would have survived.

I think they may have kept more of their members interested, they would have avoided having to post a pointless decleration against the whole world.Might i say i still believe this was a decleration they couldn't back up.

 

[DeletedUser]

Tbh if you declared earlier the members probably would have been confused and disillusioned at why a tribe would declare when they cant back it up. If your members had stayed active, then it would have been a very interesting war.

alternative scenario :-

If you had just made it clear that your tribe had 0 diplomacy from day 1 then you may have kept people interested and you wouldnt have needed to do a publicity stunt. With the players smack had you should have tried that from day 1. You still would have had people fall by the wayside but you may have retained more experience and the world war would have come your way instead of smack! declaring. The problem with smack declaring on all sides so early is that any experienced players or longterm players knew it would be a non starter, and im sure the experience in smack knew this aswel.

Most of our members actually wanted world war earlier than we declared it. Would we have been able to back it up, that was a question when we declared world war when we did. From the beginning of the world there was questions about whether Smack! could back the "smack" up. It would have been more of a dead road if we declared earlier, but I believe fully we could've handled it.

As for diplomacy, we had 0 diplomacy from day 1. The first diplomacy we truly had was Enzyme. Everything was basically for marking tribes. Diplomacy absolutely had no take on players' quitting/becoming inactive. There seems to be a negative view of diplomacy these days. Any diplomacy that doesn't hinder your growth and production but gives an advantage in some way is absolutely perfect.

 

[DeletedUser]

There seems to be a negative view of diplomacy these days. Any diplomacy that doesn't hinder your growth and production but gives an advantage in some way is absolutely perfect.

I completely agree. However, sometimes you have to settle for less. For example, in my position. We settled for less, but I ain't dissatisfied with it, but isn't 100% satisfied with it however it will let us go where I think we could do some good. But only time will tell.

 

[DeletedUser]

But only time will tell.

or you can tell

 

[DeletedUser2765]

[ke]This thread is dead, despite the 3 week bump.

Closed.[/ke]